Friday 29 July 2016

Biotech’s Coming Cancer Cure(A special thanks to Biotechnology)


      

               Biotech’s Coming Cancer Cure

when Milton Wright III got his third cancer diagnosis, he cried until he laughed. He was 20 and had survived leukemia twice before, first when he was eight and again as a teen. Each time he’d suffered through years of punishing chemotherapy.
But now he had checked himself in to Seattle Children’s Hospital. An aspiring model, he had taken a fall before a photo shoot and found he couldn’t shake off the pain in his ribs. When the doctors started preparing him for a spinal tap, he knew the cancer was back. “I said, Oh, man, they are going to tell me I relapsed again,” he recalls. “They’re going to give me my six months.”
The third time wasn’t good, he knew. He’d seen enough sick kids at the Ronald McDonald House to know that when leukemia comes back like this, it’s usually resistant to chemotherapy. Hardly anyone survives.
An immune cell treatment is prepared at Memorial Sloan Kettering in Manhattan. 

Top: A bioreactor bag holds a leukemia patient’s T cells. The cells have been genetically modified to fight cancer. A new receptor has been added. 

Middle: A sample of a patient’s T cells is prepared for quality tests. 

Bottom: A bottle of nutrients is used to feed the T cells, which are grown for about 10 days, until they number in the billions. Then they can be reinfused into a patient’s veins.
But Wright did. In 2013 his cancer, acute lymphoblastic leukemia, was destroyed with a new type of treatment in which cells from his immune system, called T cells, were removed from his blood, genetically engineered to target his cancer, and then dripped back into his veins. Although Wright was only the second person at Seattle Children’s to receive the treatment, earlier results in Philadelphia and New York had been close to miraculous. In 90 percent of patients with acute lymphoblastic leukemia that has returned and resists regular drugs, the cancer goes away. The chance of achieving remission in these circumstances is usually less than 10 percent.
Those results explain why a company called Juno Therapeutics raised $304 million when it went public in December, 16 months after its founding. In a coup of good timing, the venture capitalists and advisors who established Juno by licensing experimental T-cell treatments in development at Seattle Children’s, the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, and hospitals in New York and Memphis took the potential cancer cure public amid a historic bull market for biotech and for immunotherapy in particular. Its IPO was among the largest stock market offerings in the history of the biotechnology industry.
The T-cell therapies are the most radical of several new approaches that recruit the immune system to attack cancers. An old idea that once looked like a dead end, immunotherapy has roared back with stunning results in the last four years. Newly marketed drugs called checkpoint inhibitors are curing a small percentage of skin and lung cancers, once hopeless cases. More than 60,000 people have been treated with these drugs, which are sold by Merck and Bristol-Myers Squibb. The treatments work by removing molecular brakes that normally keep the body’s T cells from seeing cancer as an enemy, and they have helped demonstrate that the immune system is capable of destroying cancer. Juno’s technology for engineering the DNA of T cells to guide their activity is at an earlier, more experimental stage. At the time of its IPO, Juno offered data on just 61 patients with leukemia or lymphoma.
Juno is located in South Lake Union, a Seattle neighborhood dominated by Amazon.com, whose CEO, Jeff Bezos, was an early investor in the company. During a day spent at Juno’s labs and offices in May, the phrase I heard repeated over and over was “proof of principle.” That’s what cases like Wright’s have provided. The studies are small, with no control groups, no comparisons, but also no other explanation than T cells for why the cancer disappears. “It’s proved that the T cell is the drug,” says Hans Bishop, a former Bayer executive who is the company’s CEO.
Bishop argues that medicine is entering a new phase in which cells will become living drugs. It is a third pillar of medicine. The pharmaceuticals that arose from synthetic chemistry made up the first pillar. Then, after Genentech produced insulin in a bacterium in 1978, came the revolution of protein drugs. Now companies like Juno are hoping to use our own cells as the treatment. In the case of T cells, the tantalizing evidence is that some cancers could be treated with few side effects other than a powerful fever.

Juno isn’t the only company chasing the T-cell idea. More than 30 companies have started clinical tests or are planning them, including Novartis, which says it may file for approval for a competing leukemia treatment in 2016. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration last summer gave both Novartis and Juno so-called breakthrough designation, meaning that their leukemia treatments could be approved after only one larger clinical trial.
Moving beyond the proof of principle won’t be easy. No one has ever manufactured a cellular treatment of any commercial consequence. It’s not certain what the best way to make and deliver such personalized treatments would be. Nor is it clear whether engineered T cells can treat a wide variety of cancers; this year Juno and others are launching new studies to find out. Even in leukemia, cancer that affects the bone marrow and blood, it’s too early to declare a cure. The majority of patients receiving the therapy have been treated only in the last 12 months. About 25 percent have seen their cancers roar back, sometimes mutated in a way that makes them immune to the T cells. At 18 months since his treatment, Wright, who hopes to become a police officer, is one of the longest survivors.
If early results hold, tests of engineered T cells in blood cancers may lead to one of the fastest approvals in the history of drug development. It could take as little as seven years, whereas the average drug takes closer to 14 years. “That is unheard of in the industry,” says Usman Azam, head of gene and cell therapy for Novartis.
Juno Therapeutics CEO Hans Bishop talks with staff in Seattle. The company had a huge IPO in December.
At Juno I met the CFO, Steven Harr, who before joining the company was an investment banker specializing in biotech at Morgan Stanley. I asked whether he’d ever paid attention to cell therapy companies while on Wall Street. No, he said. Just the opposite. They were considered dogs, chasing an idea that didn’t work—and even if it did, it was too complicated to commercialize. The FDA lists 14 approved cell therapies, most of which are skin grafts or involve storing umbilical cords.
But Harr says he “jumped on the bandwagon” when he saw the data from the leukemia patients. Now he thinks Juno will find an economic advantage by solving the difficult problem of how to commercialize cellular treatments. “It’s a living thing—it’s different from a pill,” he says.
The treatment
“They hyped it up, like it was going to be amazing,” Wright remembers. He’d signed up for the clinical trial right away, but he didn’t tell anyone he was at the hospital. His mom was texting him: “Where you at? What’s up?” After a few days he finally told her. “I’m at Children’s. I’m getting ready for a trial.” Wright underwent a two-hour process known as leukapheresis, in which his blood was passed through a device to separate out the T cells. The cells were taken to a lab, where a strand of new DNA was inserted using a virus. Two weeks later he got the treatment: a 10-minute drip from an IV bag to reinfuse the cells. Easy stuff compared with chemotherapy. And at first, nothing happened.
A sign of how potent the T-cell treatments are is that most patients suffer from “cytokine release syndrome,” a storm of molecules generated as the cells fight the cancer. At least seven patients have been killed by the syndrome. Wright’s doctors kept checking in to see if he had developed a fever, which would signal that the T cells were working. “They were pressuring me—‘Come on, call us,’” he says. Two weeks later it came on like a body-flattening flu. He was admitted to the ICU and says he was barely lucid when smiling doctors told him they couldn’t find cancer in his body.
Carl June, the University of Pennsylvania doctor who publicized some of the first successful treatments with engineered T cells, has likened what’s happening inside patients’ bodies to “serial killing” and “mass murder.” As the billions of T cells in a dose multiply, they can locate and kill several pounds of tumor.
A worker mixes a vial of cells. The cost of preparing a dose of T cells can range from $50,000 to $75,000.
That’s something normal T cells don’t do. One reason is that they’re trained not to harm your body, an effect known as tolerance. The training occurs in the thymus, the organ for which T cells are named. Each cell bristles with thousands of copies of a single receptor, its shape generated at random by shuffled DNA (a quintillion possible arrangements are possible). T cells whose receptor attaches strongly to surface markers, called antigens, on the body’s own cells are discarded. The rest head out to patrol for foreign-looking viruses, bacteria, or infected cells, which they stick to and destroy. “The problem is that cancer is you,” says Michel Sadelain, a researcher at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center and one of Juno’s scientific founders. “The antigens on cancer just aren’t that enormous and juicy.”
Credit for the idea of getting around tolerance with an engineered T cell goes to an Israeli scientist named Zelig ­Eshhar. In a study published in 1989 in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, he replaced the T cell’s natural receptor with one that he chose. Eshhar realized that with his technique, a T cell could be engineered to attach to whatever it was instructed to attach to.
It’s an idea as dangerous as it is powerful. The reason is that few antigens appear exclusively in cancer cells. In 2009, a woman given T cells engineered to recognize colon cancer suddenly went into respiratory distress; she died five days later. Doctors at the National Cancer Institute quickly canceled the study, concluding that the T cells had encountered their antigen in her lungs and attacked.
Scientists like Sadelain soon zeroed in on one ideal antigen, called CD19. It appears nowhere in the body except on B cells, the same kind that go awry in lymphoma and in the leukemia that afflicted Wright. And it turns out that wiping out a person’s B cells isn’t life-threatening. With shots of immunoglobulin, you can live without any for years.
By 2010, doctors at Memorial Sloan Kettering, Penn, and the National Cancer Institute had begun trying to treat leukemia patients with T cells bearing a doctored receptor for CD19. To the inside of the receptor, they’d added another snippet of DNA that stimulates the cells to divide. No one is sure how the stimulation works, but without it, the modified T cells don’t do much. Early case reports eventually multiplied into trials that have treated about 350 leukemia and lymphoma patients. The results are remarkable, partly because they’re so consistent, even though each lab uses slightly different DNA designs.
Fast follower
Penn’s first results were well publicized and drew the attention of Novartis, the world’s second-largest drug company. In August 2012, it agreed to give the university $20 million to build a new cell-therapy center as part of an alliance through which Penn’s T-cell therapies will be sponsored and owned by the Swiss pharmaceutical giant. The deal was notable for being struck on the basis of published data from just three patients, and now it looks like a bargain.
It also makes Juno a “fast follower,” in startup parlance. Incorporated in August 2013, it is “a company of many fathers,” says Lawrence Corey, an infectious-disease doctor who was then the president of Fred Hutchinson. Corey, aided by the venture capitalist Bob Nelsen and Richard Klausner, the former director of the National Cancer Institute and now chief medical officer of the DNA-sequencing company Illumina, created Juno by buying up patents and licensing rights to T-cell trials under way in Seattle and at Sloan Kettering in New York.

Since its IPO, Juno’s stock market value 
has surged above $6 billion, reflecting intense speculation that engineered T cells will prove to be a new way to treat many types of cancer, not only the relatively rare leukemia Wright suffered from. Juno’s executives believe that they can quickly come up with new T cell designs and obtain a “fast readout” by testing them in terminal cancer patients, where risks are easy to justify. The company plans to have 10 studies of six different T-cell designs in progress by next year. “We are looking for breakthroughs,” says Mark Frohlich, a doctor who is Juno’s vice president for strategy. “We aren’t going to say, ‘Okay, two months survival.’”
Michel Sadelain, shown here at Memorial Sloan Kettering, helped carry out one of the first clinical trials of T cells in leukemia patients.
The big question mark is whether T cells will work in cancers other than those of the blood. The week before I visited Juno, investors briefly sent its shares tumbling by 35 percent after Novartis and Penn reported that low doses of engineered T cells had no dramatic effects in five patients with cancers of the pancreas, ovaries, or lung. Still, the data were too preliminary to indicate much. “We know it’s feasible. But how many cancers can you apply this to? That we don’t know,” says ­Sadelain. “What’s changed is that everyone now knows what to do. I think that partly explains the frenzy around T cells.”
The goal is to find the next CD19. But that’s not easily done. Since few antigens appear only on tumor cells, any targeted T cell runs the risk of wiping out vital organs, as happened to the colon cancer patient in 2009. The Recombinant DNA Advisory Committee, a federal body that oversees gene therapy, called a meeting this June to debate how scientists planned to avoid these and other side effects. One way to lessen the risk is already being tested in patients: “suicide switches,” which let doctors rapidly kill off all the engineered T cells should any serious problems arise. This spring, Michael Jensen, a pediatric cancer doctor at Seattle Children’s whose cell-therapy center treated Wright, opened a study to treat neuroblastoma, the most common cancer affecting infants. He says T cells will target an antigen found on nerve cells. If the T cells do unexpected damage, they can be inactivated with a dose of the drug Erbitux.
Safety isn’t the only obstacle. How can engineered T cells be made to persist in a person’s body to provide permanent protection? So far they don’t seem to linger in many patients, something Frohlich terms a “big problem.” And dense organ tumors can saturate their surroundings with signals, like a molecule called PD-L1, that turn T cells off. This defense is the process that checkpoint inhibitors, the new immunotherapy drugs sold by Merck and Bristol-Myers Squibb, interfere with. But DNA engineering may offer clever solutions as well. Jensen says he rewired the DNA of T cells so this “off” signal instead provokes them to kill even more.
Jensen is optimistic that rapidly improving techniques for modifying genes, and for handling and growing cells, will let researchers conquer solid tumors. “What is in the clinic now with leukemia is version 1.1 of this operating system,” he says. “But back in the labs, that is already antiquated technology.”
Given that it took 20 years to come up with the results in leukemia, Sadelain told me, “it would be naïve to expect a breakthrough every quarter.” Yet a dozen newly launched studies on T cells mean some big results could be in the wings.
One study I heard about is led by Marcela Maus, an oncologist at Penn, who this year tested engineered T cells in five patients with glioblastoma, an incurable brain cancer. When one of these patients underwent brain surgery, Maus discovered that the tumor had been mostly killed. No cancer cells with the marker she’d aimed at remained at all. So was this proof that T cells can treat brain cancer, too? Maus is reluctant to answer that question. “Potentially,” she says. It’s just too soon to know if these patients will live any longer than they would have otherwise. “It’s hard to exercise patience, but that is what is needed,” she says.
Commercial barriers
When Wright’s white blood cells were collected in late 2013, they headed to a processing facility at Seattle Children’s. Workers laboring in masks and safety suits placed them into bioreactors and used a virus to insert the new DNA. Then the cells were grown for 10 days inside plastic sacks fed with human blood serum. If a half-dozen academic centers hadn’t built specialized clean rooms like this one, there wouldn’t be any clinical trials, or any IPOs. But Jensen’s center is no commercial operation: it can prepare cells for only 10 patients a month. It costs $75,000 to manufacture cells for each one.






Jensen says about a quarter of the children whose parents want to enter them in the Seattle study aren’t accepted. Sometimes the reasons are medical, but not always: capacity is simply limited. “I wish every kid could get it,” Jensen says of the cell treatment. “The major barrier is the commercial end of it—having their factories built, having their trials done, and it being something that a doctor would be able to write a prescription for in any part of country.”
Cancer doctor Michael Jensen heads an immunotherapy program at Seattle Children’s Hospital.


Infact, no one is quite sure how a personalized cell therapy will be commercialized at a large scale. Schematics outlining how it would work typically show not just a dozen complex laboratory steps but two airplanes, to get cells to and from patients. That explains why the largest number of Juno’s employees are involved in process engineering. One of them, Chris Ramsborg, gave me a tour around what he called the “sandbox” where new ideas for growing and packaging cells are being worked out. But most of the equipment was hidden from sight. “The manufacturing technology and how we are deploying it is the secret of Juno,” he said. “The techniques to make these products don’t really exist yet.”
Several members of Juno’s staff, including Ramsborg, Frohlich, and Hans Bishop, worked at another Seattle biotech named Dendreon, which developed a T-cell treatment for prostate cancer. (The cells, instead of being engineered, were exposed to cancer antigens and then multiplied. The treatment was only modestly effective.) Even though Dendreon charged $93,000 for its treatment, it cost half that much to manufacture. The company filed for bankruptcy last year.
Dendreon’s manufacturing plant in New Jersey was scooped up by Novartis, which has started using it to process cells for patients involved in its leukemia study. Azam says Novartis, which has 400 people working in gene and cell therapy, is already studying the logistics of how a personalized cell therapy could be offered globally. “We have been mapping out how we would do the patient journey, the individual cell journey,” he says. “It’s a new way to treat patients, but also a new way of practicing business.”
It may one day be possible to mass-produce off-the-shelf T cells or even do genetic engineering at a patient’s bedside. Some labs are working with instruments to pump genetic material into cells using electricity or pressure. Others have shown they can generate T cells in a lab dish and use them to cure mice, raising the possibility of T-cell factories. For now, though, all the engineered T-cell treatments in clinical testing use a patient’s own cells.
So how much will a dose of genetically engineered immune cells cost? One Citigroup analyst estimated that the price could exceed $500,000. That would be more expensive than nearly any existing cancer drug. Yet it might be considered cheap if a 10-minute drip could effectively treat leukemia without causing permanent damage to the patient. Current chemotherapy treatments last for a year or more and can weaken a person’s heart and body for a lifetime. The hospital bills for leukemia patients can top $2 million.
Harr, Juno’s CFO, was well known on Wall Street for criticizing the high cost of cancer drugs; he warned that the government might step in and set prices if they weren’t reined in. When I asked him about the T-cell treatments, he said it was too soon to guess at a price. It depends how well they work and how hard they are to make. “There’s no model for how much it costs,” he said. “But remember, we get to utter words like ‘cure.’ And at this point, it’s a single dose.”

Wednesday 18 November 2015

Evolution Essay

Evolution Essay

Evolution is the theory that all living forms came from ancient ancestors. Through a series of mutations, genetic drift, migration, and natural selection today’s descendants show an amazing amount of similarities and diversity. Evolution on a small scale is called microevolution, relating to the changes that occur such as insects becoming resistant to pesticides. Macroevolution refers to the grand scale. It is associated with extinction, change, stability, and lineage. At the time of its “birth”, it was a controversial subject. Charles Darwin was the first to formalize the theory of evolution, but before him there were more scientists interested in it.

Charles Darwin was born in England and originally planned to take up a career in medicine. When that didn’t work out, he switched to divinity in Cambridge. Later he took a five year excursion on the HMS Beagle. During his time on board Darwin read the “Principles of Geology” that stated there was geological evidence of ancient animals. While on the Galapagos Islands he noticed that the finches on the each island were closely related but different in big ways. When he returned, he theorized evolution based on natural selection. Twenty years later he and Alfred Russell Wallace discussed evolution openly. In 1859 he published his extremely controversial ideas. Darwin was attacked for his theory, particularly by the Church. But his ideas became widely accepted.

Darwin’s own grandfather, Erasmus Darwin, was a prestigious physician, botanist, naturalist, poet, and philosopher. He believed that all modern creatures had originated from “one living filament”, a common ancestor. Erasmus did not come up with natural selection, but he did believe in competition and sexual selection. He believed that the strongest males reserved the right to mate, therefore passing on satisfactory traits. He used an integrative method of research, bringing together multiple branches of science to come to his conclusion. Some of his ideas were alike to those of Jean Baptiste Lamarck. Lamarck is an obscure character in evolutionary history as he was ostracized and his theories were not recognized by his colleagues. He was in the army, then worked as a botanist in the royal gardens. In 1793, Lamarck was appointed professor of invertebrates. At the time there was little research on insects. He wrote a series of books about invertebrate zoology and paleontology. Although other scientists in his day hinted at the possibility of evolution, Lamarck declared it forthright. He was discredited by his peers and died a poor man. However, Charles Darwin and others respected his as a great zoologist and the forerunner of evolutionary theory. Georges Cuvier was a colleague of Lamarck’s that forsake him. He was a brilliant mind, but he did not share Lamarck’s theory of evolution, going as far as to discredit him. Cuvier had studied mummies of cats and ibises brought back from Egypt by Napoleon. Finding no difference from current day animals, he had decided evolution was false. He later studied elephants and mammoth fossils, determining that mammoths were different from living elephants in their day. This led to the important idea of extinction.

Macroevolution is evolution on a grand scale. Instead of focusing on a single branch, macroevolution focuses on that chunk of the tree. It identifies patterns and transformations, then figures out how and why it happened. Mutation, migration, genetic drift, and natural selection are basic mechanisms that apply to both micro- and macroevolution to determine these patterns.For 3.8 billion years mutations have been passing through the filter of natural selection, creating stronger and more resilient descendants.  Changes and extinctions that have happened over the years are all part of macroevolution. Some changes take place slowly, this is called stasis. An example of this is the cœlacanth, a fish hauled onto a ship in 1938, it was thought to be extinct for 70 million years. Extinction is an important part of evolution. Every species has a chance that it will become extinct. Microevolution is an even more important part of the evolutionary theory. As previously discussed, it is evolution on a small scale. It is the changes in animals to adapt to their habitats and the changing environment. Microevolutionairy changes can be seen by changes in gene frequency. A few of the mechanisms that affect these changes are mutation, migration, genetic drift, and natural selection. If a random cell is mutated, for example if a  yellow bird has some purple chicks and the rest are yellow. The genes in the yellow bird would have been mutated to produce purple chicks. If the purple chicks moved to another island, and the yellow birds on that island immigrated to the island that purple birds had previously inhabited, that is known at migration, or gene flow. When a mutated gene is passed to more offspring and out numbers the original colored offspring it is called genetic drift. As for natural selection, it means that the more well equipped animals are the most likely to survive. For example if the purple birds lived in a purple tree they would be more likely to survive than their yellow relatives in a purple tree. A test for preformed on sand colored and dark colored mice, showing that each mouse matched the color of their corresponding habitats. When put in the other’s habitat, they were put into more danger.

Ideas about evolution extend to different types of science as well. Biochemistry is also interested in this topic. It shows that there is a surprising amount of evolutionary evidence within the human body, bacteria, and fungus. An e.coli bacteria can become mutated and glow under a black light, showing an evolutionary change. As human fetuses grow within their mother’s wombs they are changing in evolutionary ways. There is fossil evidence that supports the evolutionary theory. Paleontologists have found and studied different species of fossils and have concluded that some fossils found were related to fossils found prior to the dig, or after. These fossils just had changes to them, evolution it could be said.

The most convincing arguments for evolution seem to be fossil evidence and the evidence that the fossils have evolved from other, previous fossils. Seeing how Darwin’s finches different from each other although they are the same bird, it makes sense to believe that evolution is plausible. Human are even evolving. Jaws are becoming shorter and their is less room for wisdom teeth in their mouths. Looking back into history, there is also the thought about Native Americans who lived in Arizona or the indigenous people of the Arctic. Their constitutions must have been completely different to be able to survive such extreme conditions. When thinking about dogs, crows, and spiders that can procreate with different dogs, crows, and spiders in their species it’s hard not to believe in evolution. This idea of speciation is a rather convincing idea.

Different Diseases and Syndromes

Wrinkles

Wrinkles is not a disease nor any virus or bacteria but wrinkle appears on a human being as well as on animals as the age passes through, wrinkles are also considered as the sign of maturity, these wrinkles are also seen on the fingers when a person take more time in swimming pool or water.


Causes of Wrinkles:


* The main cause is the age factor and majority of people get wrinkles on skin when they cross 60-65 years of age.
* Smoking is another cause of having wrinkles on skin.
* Taking enough sun bath can also cause it.
* Heredity.
* Drinking less amount of water.
* People who works in sun exposure areas like golf course, grounds often get wrinkles.

How to prevent Wrinkles:



One should follow these steps in order to stay away with it.
*  One should use full sleeves shirts, hats or caps and other necessary dress which can prevent from direct sun light.
* Quit smoking as it is cause of dozens of other dangerous diseases as well.
* Drink enough water so that your skin does not get dry and can dehydration.

Wrinkles Treatment:



The wrinkles treatment include some creams and medicines, you cannot say that you can 100% get rid of these wrinkles but some.


Marfan Syndrome

Marfan syndrome is an inherited disease which damages the connective tissue of the body. the most abundant tissue in the body are the connective tissues and is a vital component to supporting the body's organs.
It provide the body with support and strength to tendons, cartilages, heart valves, and to many other parts of the body, another main function of connective tissues is to strengthen and elasticity of blood valves.
Because the connective tissues are present in the whole body, Marfan syndrome can affect many parts, including the bones, skin, heart and blood vessels, nervous system, lungs and eyes.one of its major effected part  is aorta it can badly effect aorta.

Causes of Marfan Syndrome:

1. It is caused due to defect in gene.
2. Mostly this disease is inherited. It can take place similarly in men and women and can be inherited from only one parent having this marfan syndrome disease.

Diagnosis of Marfan Syndrome

:
1. The doctors or experts can take physical exam of eyes, heart, muscle, blood vessels and of skeletal system.
2. They also can take the ECG (electrocardiogram), some x-rays like Chest X-Ray, Echocardiogram and some other tests like CT-Scan and MRI, because they are helpful in diagnosing this disease.

Symptoms of Marfan Syndrome:

The symptoms of marfan syndrome are not yet clearly known but their are some signs through which one can feel it like a person feeling gracelessness in bones, some organs of body not functioning properly, In some cases a person feels fatigue,pain throughout the body or in some organs, loss of appetite and heart blockage.

Rosacea

Rosacea is another disease of skin which causes redness and pimples on the body of human being and specially it appears on  forehead , cheeks, chin, and nose parts. This redness can frequently appear or suddenly disappear. Specialists also call rosacea as "adult acne" because rosacea may cause outbreaks which looks same like acne.
It can be embarrassing sometimes or in the case it is untreated than it will get worst and worst day by day.

Causes of Rosacea:
1. Its main causes are unknown up till now.
2. It may be genetically.
3. Those people who are infected by complexion are seem to be more are seem to be more infected by rosacea.
4. Rosacea often happens when something causes the blood vessels in the face to expand, which causes redness on face.

Symptoms of Rosacea:
1. The red veins which are present on the skin of a person are clearly seen like the web of a spider.
2. Flushed face.
3. Feeling hot or burning on the skin.
4. Itching
5. Itching or sensations on the skin whenever victim apply creams, lotions or medicines.

Treatment of Rosacea:
1. Antibiotics may help.
2. Antibiotic creams are also advised by experts.
3. Surgery may help.
4. Some creams or soaps may be advised by the experts.
5. No one should use severly hot water on body it will result in dryness and can get effected by rosacea.

Graves Disease

Graves disease is a thyroid condition which affects the gland in a way that the gland results in abnormal over activity and the thyroid of a person starts producing huge amount of hormones.This disease is one of the main cause of hyperthyroidism, it includes nervousness, anxiety, fatigue, bulging eyes, weight loss, hypertension and irritability. Sometimes the complications may lead to life threatening risks.
Graves' disease is more common in women than in men specially in USA. People over the age of 50 who have hypertension or atherosclerosis are at severe risk for developing Graves' disease. Graves' disease is also the most common autoimmune diseases, affecting 13 million people and targeting women seven times as often as men.

Symptoms of Grave’s Disease:


1. Shaky hands.
2. Diarrhea.
3. Weight loss.
4. Tremors.
5. Lack of sleep.
6. Sweating.
7. Fatigue.
8. Irritability.
9. Rapid heart rate.

Diagnosis of Grave’s disease:


A blood test is usually performed to check levels of thyroid stimulating hormone (TSH) and the thyroid hormone thyroxine. If Low levels of TSH and high levels of thyroxine is found then only this disease can be diagnosed.

Treatment of grave's disease:


There is no way to prevent Graves' disease, high level of thyroid glands can be rolled back to the normal level taking regular medicines and by monitoring disease.


Adenoma

Adenoma is a benign tumor that develops from epithelial tissues, it is also found in colon it is often referred to as adenomatous polyps, mostly adenomas are not cancerous but they have ability to become cancerous. No doubt they left a noticeable effect where ever they target in the body that organ show that it is affected by adenoma and is quite uncomfortable for the individual. There are many types of adenomas that are common in women, such as adenomas of liver, colon adenoma which is more common in adults of growing age.

Causes of Adenoma:

The cause of adenoma are yet unknown.

Types of Adenoma:

There are three types of adenomas:
1. Tubular.
2. Tubulovillous.
3. Villous.

Symptoms of Adenoma:

1. Bloody cough.
2. Itching.
3. Bleeding.
4. Shortness of breath.
5. Chills.
6. Fatigue.
There are many unfound symptoms of this disease as well.
There could be many other unknown and unseen symptoms as well that can be seen vary widely.

Diagnosis of Adenoma:

1. By collecting urine samples.
2. By blood tests.
3. Ultra sound imaging.
4. CT scan.
5. Biopsy.
6. MRI.

Treatment of Adenoma:

The treatment usually involves the removal of adenoma although such types of medication can also be used to treat symptoms of this disease as well.

What is Biotechnology? and history

What is Biotechnology?


Pamela Peters, from Biotechnology: A Guide To Genetic Engineering. Wm. C. Brown Publishers, Inc., 1993.

Biotechnology is technology based on biology, especially when used in agriculture, food science, and medicine. The United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity defines biotechnology as

Biotechnology in one form or another has flourished since prehistoric times. When the first human beings realized that they could plant their own crops and breed their own animals, they learned to use biotechnology. The discovery that fruit juices fermented into wine, or that milk could be converted into cheese or yogurt, or that beer could be made by fermenting solutions of malt and hops began the study of biotechnology. When the first bakers found that they could make a soft, spongy bread rather than a firm, thin cracker, they were acting as fledgling biotechnologists. The first animal breeders, realizing that different physical traits could be either magnified or lost by mating appropriate pairs of animals, engaged in the manipulations of biotechnology.

What then is biotechnology? The term brings to mind many different things. Some think of developing new types of animals. Others dream of almost unlimited sources of human therapeutic drugs. Still others envision the possibility of growing crops that are more nutritious and naturally pest-resistant to feed a rapidly growing world population. This question elicits almost as many first-thought responses as there are people to whom the question can be posed.

In its purest form, the term "biotechnology" refers to the use of living organisms or their products to modify human health and the human environment. Prehistoric biotechnologists did this as they used yeast cells to raise bread dough and to ferment alcoholic beverages, and bacterial cells to make cheeses and yogurts and as they bred their strong, productive animals to make even stronger and more productive offspring.

Throughout human history, we have learned a great deal about the different organisms that our ancestors used so effectively. The marked increase in our understanding of these organisms and their cell products gains us the ability to control the many functions of various cells and organisms. Using the techniques of gene splicing and recombinant DNA technology, we can now actually combine the genetic elements of two or more living cells. Functioning lengths of DNA can be taken from one organism and placed into the cells of another organism. As a result, for example, we can cause bacterial cells to produce human molecules. Cows can produce more milk for the same amount of feed. And we can synthesize therapeutic molecules that have never before existed.


HISTORY

The most practical use of biotechnology, which is still present today, is the cultivation of plants to produce food suitable to humans. Agriculture has been theorized to have become the dominant way of producing food since the Neolithic Revolution. The processes and methods of agriculture have been refined by other mechanical and biological sciences since its inception. Through early biotechnology farmers were able to select the best suited and highest-yield crops to produce enough food to support a growing population. Other uses of biotechnology were required as crops and fields became increasingly large and difficult to maintain. Specific organisms and organism byproducts were used to fertilize, restore nitrogen, and control pests. Throughout the use of agriculture farmers have inadvertently altered the genetics of their crops through introducing them to new environments and breeding them with other plants--one of the first forms of biotechnology. Cultures such as those in Mesopotamia, Egypt, and India developed the process of brewing beer. It is still done by the same basic method of using malted grains (containing enzymes) to convert starch from grains into sugar and then adding specific yeasts to produce beer. In this process the carbohydrates in the grains were broken down into alcohols such as ethanol. Ancient Indians also used the juices of the plant Ephedra Vulgaris and used to call it Soma. Later other cultures produced the process of Lactic acid fermentation which allowed the fermentation and preservation of other forms of food. Fermentation was also used in this time period to produce leavened bread. Although the process of fermentation was not fully understood until Louis Pasteur’s work in 1857, it is still the first use of biotechnology to convert a food source into another form.

Combinations of plants and other organisms were used as medications in many early civilizations. Since as early as 200 BC, people began to use disabled or minute amounts of infectious agents to immunize themselves against infections. These and similar processes have been refined in modern medicine and have led to many developments such as antibiotics, vaccines, and other methods of fighting sickness.

In the early twentieth century scientists gained a greater understanding of microbiology and explored ways of manufacturing specific products. In 1917, Chaim Weizmann first used a pure microbiological culture in an industrial process, that of manufacturing corn starch using Clostridium acetobutylicum to produce acetone, which the United Kingdom desperately needed to manufacture explosives during World War I.

The field of modern biotechnology is thought to have largely begun on June 16, 1980, when the United States Supreme Court ruled that a genetically-modified microorganism could be patented in the case of Diamond v. Chakrabarty. Indian-born Ananda Chakrabarty, working for General Electric, had developed a bacterium (derived from the Pseudomonas genus) capable of breaking down crude oil, which he proposed to use in treating oil spills.

Revenue in the industry is expected to grow by 12.9% in 2008. Another factor influencing the biotechnology sector's success is improved intellectual property rights legislation -- and enforcement -- worldwide, as well as strengthened demand for medical and pharmaceutical products to cope with an ageing, and ailing, U.S. population .

Rising demand for biofuels is expected to be good news for the biotechnology sector, with the Department of Energy estimating ethanol usage could reduce U.S. petroleum-derived fuel consumption by up to 30% by 2030. The biotechnology sector has allowed the U.S. farming industry to rapidly increase its supply of corn and soybeans -- the main inputs into biofuels -- by developing genetically-modified seeds which are resistant to pests and drought. By boosting farm productivity, biotechnology plays a crucial role in ensuring that biofuel production targets are met.

Applications of biotechnology

Applications of biotechnology

Applications

Biotechnology has applications in four major industrial areas, including health care (medical), crop production and agriculture, non food (industrial) uses of crops and other products (e.g. biodegradable plastics, vegetable oil, biofuels), and environmental uses.

For example, one application of biotechnology is the directed use of organisms for the manufacture of organic products (examples include beer and milk products). Another example is using naturally present bacteria by the mining industry in bioleaching. Biotechnology is also used to recycle, treat waste, clean up sites contaminated by industrial activities (bioremediation), and also to produce biological weapons.

A series of derived terms have been coined to identify several branches of biotechnology, for example:
Red biotechnology is applied to medical processes. Some examples are the designing of organisms to produce antibiotics, and the engineering of genetic cures through genomic manipulation.
A rose plant that began as cells grown in a tissue culture
Green biotechnology is biotechnology applied to agricultural processes. An example would be the selection and domestication of plants via micropropagation. Another example is the designing of transgenic plants to grow under specific environmental conditions or in the presence (or absence) of certain agricultural chemicals. One hope is that green biotechnology might produce more environmentally friendly solutions than traditional industrial agriculture. An example of this is the engineering of a plant to express a pesticide, thereby eliminating the need for external application of pesticides. An example of this would be Bt corn. Whether or not green biotechnology products such as this are ultimately more environmentally friendly is a topic of considerable debate.
White biotechnology, also known as industrial biotechnology, is biotechnology applied to industrial processes. An example is the designing of an organism to produce a useful chemical. Another example is the using of enzymes as industrial catalysts to either produce valuable chemicals or destroy hazardous/polluting chemicals. White biotechnology tends to consume less in resources than traditional processes used to produce industrial goods.
Blue biotechnology is a term that has been used to describe the marine and aquatic applications of biotechnology, but its use is relatively rare.
The investments and economic output of all of these types of applied biotechnologies form what has been described as the bioeconomy.
Bioinformatics is an interdisciplinary field which addresses biological problems using computational techniques, and makes the rapid organization and analysis of biological data possible. The field may also be referred to as computational biology, and can be defined as, "conceptualizing biology in terms of molecules and then applying informatics techniques to understand and organize the information associated with these molecules, on a large scale." Bioinformatics plays a key role in various areas, such as functional genomics, structural genomics, and proteomics, and forms a key component in the biotechnology and pharmaceutical sector.

Medicine


In medicine, modern biotechnology finds promising applications in such areas as
pharmacogenomics;
drug production;
genetic testing; and
gene therapy.

Pharmacogenomics


DNA Microarray chip -- Some can do as many as a million blood tests at once
Main article: Pharmacogenomics

Pharmacogenomics is the study of how the genetic inheritance of an individual affects his/her body’s response to drugs. It is a coined word derived from the words “pharmacology” and “genomics”. It is hence the study of the relationship between pharmaceuticals and genetics. The vision of pharmacogenomics is to be able to design and produce drugs that are adapted to each person’s genetic makeup.

Pharmacogenomics results in the following benefits:

1. Development of tailor-made medicines. Using pharmacogenomics, pharmaceutical companies can create drugs based on the proteins, enzymes and RNA molecules that are associated with specific genes and diseases. These tailor-made drugs promise not only to maximize therapeutic effects but also to decrease damage to nearby healthy cells.

2. More accurate methods of determining appropriate drug dosages. Knowing a patient’s genetics will enable doctors to determine how well his/ her body can process and metabolize a medicine. This will maximize the value of the medicine and decrease the likelihood of overdose.

3. Improvements in the drug discovery and approval process. The discovery of potential therapies will be made easier using genome targets. Genes have been associated with numerous diseases and disorders. With modern biotechnology, these genes can be used as targets for the development of effective new therapies, which could significantly shorten the drug discovery process.

4. Better vaccines. Safer vaccines can be designed and produced by organisms transformed by means of genetic engineering. These vaccines will elicit the immune response without the attendant risks of infection. They will be inexpensive, stable, easy to store, and capable of being engineered to carry several strains of pathogen at once.

Pharmaceutical products
Computer-generated image of insulin hexamers highlighting the threefold symmetry, the zinc ions holding it together, and the histidine residues involved in zinc binding.

Most traditional pharmaceutical drugs are relatively simple molecules that have been found primarily through trial and error to treat the symptoms of a disease or illness. Biopharmaceuticals are large biological molecules known as proteins and these usually target the underlying mechanisms and pathways of a malady (but not always, as is the case with using insulin to treat type 1 diabetes mellitus, as that treatment merely addresses the symptoms of the disease, not the underlying cause which is autoimmunity); it is a relatively young industry. They can deal with targets in humans that may not be accessible with traditional medicines. A patient typically is dosed with a small molecule via a tablet while a large molecule is typically injected.

Small molecules are manufactured by chemistry but larger molecules are created by living cells such as those found in the human body: for example, bacteria cells, yeast cells, animal or plant cells.

Modern biotechnology is often associated with the use of genetically altered microorganisms such as E. coli or yeast for the production of substances like synthetic insulin or antibiotics. It can also refer to transgenic animals or transgenic plants, such as Bt corn. Genetically altered mammalian cells, such as Chinese Hamster Ovary (CHO) cells, are also used to manufacture certain pharmaceuticals. Another promising new biotechnology application is the development of plant-made pharmaceuticals.

Biotechnology is also commonly associated with landmark breakthroughs in new medical therapies to treat hepatitis B, hepatitis C, cancers, arthritis, haemophilia, bone fractures, multiple sclerosis, and cardiovascular disorders. The biotechnology industry has also been instrumental in developing molecular diagnostic devices than can be used to define the target patient population for a given biopharmaceutical. Herceptin, for example, was the first drug approved for use with a matching diagnostic test and is used to treat breast cancer in women whose cancer cells express the protein HER2.

Modern biotechnology can be used to manufacture existing medicines relatively easily and cheaply. The first genetically engineered products were medicines designed to treat human diseases. To cite one example, in 1978 Genentech developed synthetic humanized insulin by joining its gene with a plasmid vector inserted into the bacterium Escherichia coli. Insulin, widely used for the treatment of diabetes, was previously extracted from the pancreas of abattoir animals (cattle and/or pigs). The resulting genetically engineered bacterium enabled the production of vast quantities of synthetic human insulin at relatively low cost, although the cost savings was used to increase profits for manufacturers, not passed on to consumers or their healthcare providers. According to a 2003 study undertaken by the International Diabetes Federation (IDF) on the access to and availability of insulin in its member countries, synthetic 'human' insulin is considerably more expensive in most countries where both synthetic 'human' and animal insulin are commercially available: e.g. within European countries the average price of synthetic 'human' insulin was twice as high as the price of pork insulin. Yet in its position statement, the IDF writes that "there is no overwhelming evidence to prefer one species of insulin over another" and "[modern, highly-purified] animal insulins remain a perfectly acceptable alternative.

Modern biotechnology has evolved, making it possible to produce more easily and relatively cheaply human growth hormone, clotting factors for hemophiliacs, fertility drugs, erythropoietin and other drugs.[12] Most drugs today are based on about 500 molecular targets. Genomic knowledge of the genes involved in diseases, disease pathways, and drug-response sites are expected to lead to the discovery of thousands more new targets

Genetic testing

Gel electrophoresis

Genetic testing involves the direct examination of the DNA molecule itself. A scientist scans a patient’s DNA sample for mutated sequences.

There are two major types of gene tests. In the first type, a researcher may design short pieces of DNA (“probes”) whose sequences are complementary to the mutated sequences. These probes will seek their complement among the base pairs of an individual’s genome. If the mutated sequence is present in the patient’s genome, the probe will bind to it and flag the mutation. In the second type, a researcher may conduct the gene test by comparing the sequence of DNA bases in a patient’s gene to disease in healthy individuals or their progeny.

Genetic testing is now used for:
Determining sex
Carrier screening, or the identification of unaffected individuals who carry one copy of a gene for a disease that requires two copies for the disease to manifest
Prenatal diagnostic screening
Newborn screening
Presymptomatic testing for predicting adult-onset disorders
Presymptomatic testing for estimating the risk of developing adult-onset cancers
Confirmational diagnosis of symptomatic individuals
Forensic/identity testing





Some genetic tests are already available, although most of them are used in developed countries. The tests currently available can detect mutations associated with rare genetic disorders like cystic fibrosis, sickle cell anemia, and Huntington’s disease. Recently, tests have been developed to detect mutation for a handful of more complex conditions such as breast, ovarian, and colon cancers. However, gene tests may not detect every mutation associated with a particular condition because many are as yet undiscovered, and the ones they do detect may present different risks to different people and populations.

Controversial questions

The bacterium E. coli is routinely genetically engineered.

Several issues have been raised regarding the use of genetic testing:

1. Absence of cure. There is still a lack of effective treatment or preventive measures for many diseases and conditions now being diagnosed or predicted using gene tests. Thus, revealing information about risk of a future disease that has no existing cure presents an ethical dilemma for medical practitioners.

2. Ownership and control of genetic information. Who will own and control genetic information, or information about genes, gene products, or inherited characteristics derived from an individual or a group of people like indigenous communities? At the macro level, there is a possibility of a genetic divide, with developing countries that do not have access to medical applications of biotechnology being deprived of benefits accruing from products derived from genes obtained from their own people. Moreover, genetic information can pose a risk for minority population groups as it can lead to group stigmatization.

At the individual level, the absence of privacy and anti-discrimination legal protections in most countries can lead to discrimination in employment or insurance or other misuse of personal genetic information. This raises questions such as whether genetic privacy is different from medical privacy.

3. Reproductive issues. These include the use of genetic information in reproductive decision-making and the possibility of genetically altering reproductive cells that may be passed on to future generations. For example, germline therapy forever changes the genetic make-up of an individual’s descendants. Thus, any error in technology or judgment may have far-reaching consequences. Ethical issues like designer babies and human cloning have also given rise to controversies between and among scientists and bioethicists, especially in the light of past abuses with eugenics.

4. Clinical issues. These center on the capabilities and limitations of doctors and other health-service providers, people identified with genetic conditions, and the general public in dealing with genetic information.

5. Effects on social institutions. Genetic tests reveal information about individuals and their families. Thus, test results can affect the dynamics within social institutions, particularly the family.

6. Conceptual and philosophical implications regarding human responsibility, free will vis-à-vis genetic determinism, and the concepts of health and disease.


Gene therapy


Main article: Gene therapy
Gene therapy using an Adenovirus vector. A new gene is inserted into an adenovirus vector, which is used to introduce the modified DNA into a human cell. If the treatment is successful, the new gene will make a functional protein.

Gene therapy may be used for treating, or even curing, genetic and acquired diseases like cancer and AIDS by using normal genes to supplement or replace defective genes or to bolster a normal function such as immunity. It can be used to target somatic (i.e., body) or germ (i.e., egg and sperm) cells. In somatic gene therapy, the genome of the recipient is changed, but this change is not passed along to the next generation. In contrast, in germline gene therapy, the egg and sperm cells of the parents are changed for the purpose of passing on the changes to their offspring.

There are basically two ways of implementing a gene therapy treatment:

1. Ex vivo, which means “outside the body” – Cells from the patient’s blood or bone marrow are removed and grown in the laboratory. They are then exposed to a virus carrying the desired gene. The virus enters the cells, and the desired gene becomes part of the DNA of the cells. The cells are allowed to grow in the laboratory before being returned to the patient by injection into a vein.

2. In vivo, which means “inside the body” – No cells are removed from the patient’s body. Instead, vectors are used to deliver the desired gene to cells in the patient’s body.

Currently, the use of gene therapy is limited. Somatic gene therapy is primarily at the experimental stage. Germline therapy is the subject of much discussion but it is not being actively investigated in larger animals and human beings.

As of June 2001, more than 500 clinical gene-therapy trials involving about 3,500 patients have been identified worldwide. Around 78% of these are in the United States, with Europe having 18%. These trials focus on various types of cancer, although other multigenic diseases are being studied as well. Recently, two children born with severe combined immunodeficiency disorder (“SCID”) were reported to have been cured after being given genetically engineered cells.

Gene therapy faces many obstacles before it can become a practical approach for treating disease. At least four of these obstacles are as follows:

1. Gene delivery tools. Genes are inserted into the body using gene carriers called vectors. The most common vectors now are viruses, which have evolved a way of encapsulating and delivering their genes to human cells in a pathogenic manner. Scientists manipulate the genome of the virus by removing the disease-causing genes and inserting the therapeutic genes. However, while viruses are effective, they can introduce problems like toxicity, immune and inflammatory responses, and gene control and targeting issues.

2. Limited knowledge of the functions of genes. Scientists currently know the functions of only a few genes. Hence, gene therapy can address only some genes that cause a particular disease. Worse, it is not known exactly whether genes have more than one function, which creates uncertainty as to whether replacing such genes is indeed desirable.

3. Multigene disorders and effect of environment. Most genetic disorders involve more than one gene. Moreover, most diseases involve the interaction of several genes and the environment. For example, many people with cancer not only inherit the disease gene for the disorder, but may have also failed to inherit specific tumor suppressor genes. Diet, exercise, smoking and other environmental factors may have also contributed to their disease.

4. High costs. Since gene therapy is relatively new and at an experimental stage, it is an expensive treatment to undertake. This explains why current studies are focused on illnesses commonly found in developed countries, where more people can afford to pay for treatment. It may take decades before developing countries can take advantage of this technology.


Human Genome Project

DNA Replication image from the Human Genome Project (HGP)

The Human Genome Project is an initiative of the U.S. Department of Energy (“DOE”) that aims to generate a high-quality reference sequence for the entire human genome and identify all the human genes.

The DOE and its predecessor agencies were assigned by the U.S. Congress to develop new energy resources and technologies and to pursue a deeper understanding of potential health and environmental risks posed by their production and use. In 1986, the DOE announced its Human Genome Initiative. Shortly thereafter, the DOE and National Institutes of Health developed a plan for a joint Human Genome Project (“HGP”), which officially began in 1990.

The HGP was originally planned to last 15 years. However, rapid technological advances and worldwide participation accelerated the completion date to 2003 (making it a 13 year project). Already it has enabled gene hunters to pinpoint genes associated with more than 30 disorders